At 08:09 AM 11/17/2003 -0500, SsolSsinclair wrote:
>It follows then that:
>border:1px solid #fff SHOULD BE f0f0f0? f7f7f7? OR f0f0f0?
>...so that the next guy/gal that comes along can understand it?
>yes. this simplification does bear. i cannot actually think of a reasonable
>excuse to do the extra typing, except when i am trying to hit the
>of #707070, and 777777 and 7f7f7f.
>i really do not know how #777 wouild be interpreted. any guesses anyone?
Well... I can give you one reason, at least from a graphic designers point
of view. When you use shorthand, like in the example above, you can't ever
specify shades, what you boil it down to (afaict) is the web safe palette,
which is kind of obsolete today, as browser stats shows a diminishing few
still being on 256 settings. Lets say in the example above that you are
setting a box to be #777, and then you set a border around it, very subtle
with #7f7f7f (which would work like a slight shadowing of the box) then you
will experience some funky things under certain browser/os combinations,
namely that the whole rule is read in shorthand, so your border becomes
#7f7, and there is a small difference.
In the grey areas it doesn't make much of a difference but other colors
will show more unwanted changes.
Now, adding to the question stream in this thread, why is it that it reads
the rules that way?
i would suggest that this problem exists because inventors of monitor
technology are not presently writing interpretive code [Colour Definitions]
to complement their product. I imagine it simply has not occurred to them.
Anyways, monitors should be "Code Compliant". Thanks for the response. Does
help clarify Debate of Situation.
Veine K Vikberg
Professional Web Guru
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/